There’s a lot of existing data that demonstrates correlation between media consumption and adolescent / young adult knowledge of and perception of consent. I’ll hide some article abstracts I found to hopefully avoid hijacking the Snow White discussion.
The current study tested whether exposure to magazines was associated with intentions related to sexual consent negotiation. A survey of 313 college students indicated that exposure to men’s magazines was significantly associated with lower intentions to seek sexual consent and lower intentions to adhere to decisions about sexual consent. In contrast, exposure to women’s magazines was significantly associated with greater intentions to refuse unwanted sexual activity.
…assessing perceived coverage of sexual consent in school and by parents, attitudes toward university and media coverage of sexual consent, and the amount they perceived they had learned about sexual consent from five sources (mothers, fathers, friends, school-based sexual health education, the Internet). On average, participants reported poor coverage of sexual consent. Participants more strongly agreed that there was extensive coverage and that they had learned a lot from coverage in the media than at university but did not strongly endorse either source. Participants thought they learned significantly more from the media and Internet and peers than from school and parents. Participants who received limited sexual consent education at school/home responded to an open-ended question regarding the perceived impact of limited education from this source. Although some participants reported no impact, others attributed negative experiences to their limited sexual consent education including experiencing non-consensual sexual activities and detrimental effects on their romantic relationships.
…examine factors that influence perceptions of healthy relationships and consent, including social media… Results: Results showed social media had more of an influence on perceptions of healthy relationships. However, the influence of social media on consent and healthy relationships is inconsistent across platforms; emphasizing the need for further research.
We conducted two studies to examine the portrayal of sexual consent and refusal in adolescent-directed programing and the effects of viewing this content on adolescents… Exposure to verbal consent positively influenced intentions to seek verbal consent via increased positive attitudes toward women.
We collected data from 291 students attending a public university in Northern California and found that most (presumably well-informed) students had only cursory understandings of consent.
Exposure to the Law & Order franchise is associated with decreased rape myth acceptance and increased intentions to adhere to expressions of sexual consent and refuse unwanted sexual activity; whereas exposure to the CSI franchise is associated with decreased intentions to seek consent and decreased intentions to adhere to expressions of sexual consent. Exposure to the NCIS franchise was associated with decreased intentions to refuse unwanted sexual activity.
A single exposure is likely not a big deal. Thing is that exposures are usually part of patterns of exposures. And for younger children by definition a single exposure is a bigger portion of their whole and of bigger potential impact to their internalizing what is normative or even ideal.
Doubling back to the focus on those with short stature conditions: if there were a large volume of exposures to short stature portayals that were as part of being the breadth of normal and other characters, not short as their point, then no issue at all. The problem is the lack of that, of the balance.
No, I didn’t. In fact, I went out of my way not to opine if I think it is creepy or not.
My point is that criticism must be about what is actually there. You can’t take away parts that are inconvenient. Nor can you add things that didn’t occur.
And that applies equally to your criticisms of other posts.
Come on—this is a classic strawman. You know I didn’t say “the text says it’s not creepy, so it isn’t creepy.”
Well, smoking kills 400000 Americans a year about 40000 from second hand smoke, including mostly kids and seniors. And there is proof that Big Tobacco manipulated Filmmakers for product placement and to show smoking in a positive light, in order to get more people addicted to their product.
Now this film was made in 1937. No one thinks it was made to promote non-consensual kissing. The Price and Snow White are in True Love- maybe that is a fantasy, but its a fantasy film. The prnice thinks Snow White is dead, and kissed his true love goodbye. Kissing a dead loved one goodbye is a common cultural thing, like it or not.
Yeah, non-consensual acts like kissing or grab-ass or whatever are bad. But this film does not show that. In fact NO ONE thought anything about it except as a very romantic gesture until fairly recently.
There are films made much more films that show blatant non-consensual acts and stalking, and show them as acceptable and even romantic. This is a very poor hill to pick for the fight against non-consensual kissing, since it isnt.
Oh shit, this is really embarrassing for me. Here I am, in a thread about the movie 16 candles, and I’m talking about Snow White! What was I even thinking?
Until fairly recently, it wasn’t rape if you were married. Who the fuck cares what they thought about sexual violence “until fairly recently”. What matters is what it is now.
Until fairly recently, it wasn’t sexual assault for the guy to kiss the girl without checking for consent. I’m delighted that times have changed for the better, and I’ll be delighted if Disney gets rid of that in the remake.
There’s a very long lag between smoking and death. That’s not my area of expertise, but asbestos deaths are. Asbestos use dropped sharply in the 80s, when OSHA imposed regulations to protect workers.
(The regs seem to have been last updated in 1994, but they first had teeth in 1986.)
The number of mesothelioma deaths has only recently started to decline. That’s because it takes so long after exposure to asbestos to develop mesothelioma.
(Number of cases appears to have peaked around 2005, but didn’t start to noticably drop until perhaps 2011, 25 years after the major reduction in exposure.)
And population keeps growing. So… Maybe cigarette-related deaths have been steady?
Naw
On a positive note, the number of new lung cancer cases continues to decrease, partly because more people are quitting smoking (or not starting). The number of deaths from lung cancer continues to drop as well, due to fewer people smoking and advances in early detection and treatment.
Apparently. It’s weird, though, when you think what smoking deaths would look like if we didn’t dramatically reduce smoking rates over the past couple decades. Based on the fact that there were much, much higher smoking rates for 60 years preceding the introduction of the 400k number, it seems reasonable to conclude that that number would still be 400k. Otherwise the number would have started much higher, what with 60 years of triple the smoking rate we have now from the 30s to the 90s.
Meaning that not only does decreasing smoking rates not lower it, but increasing smoking rates wouldn’t raise it, either. Seems weirdly fixed at 400k, which just happens to be the approximate number you get when you multiply the total number of deaths of all Americans by the percentage of smokers. As in, every single smoker who dies (for any reason) is counted as someone who smoking killed.
Maybe that’s just a coincidence, though. 30 consecutive years of coincidence.
I suppose it would be reasonable to say that the vast majority of American deaths are health-related, as opposed to car accidents or violence. It’s 3.2 million deaths total, but well under 100k from car accidents and gun violence combined.
Further, it could be argued that any health-related death of a smoker was probably hurried along by the smoking, meaning the vast majority of all smoker deaths could indeed be said to have been “caused” by smoking. (“Smoking kills…”) If that’s why we get the 400k number, fair enough.
But the exact same logic applies to obesity. With 42% of Americans being obese, that same logic that says smoking kills 400k Americans also says that obesity kills 1.3 million Americans per year.
So to me, when I hear 400k Americans are killed by smoking each year, that carries the same validity as saying obesity kills 1.3 million Americans per year. It comes across as propaganda.
Again, smoking is very bad, and will at very least hasten your death. But so is obesity, yet I don’t see the same scare-mongering energy for that. In fact, the CDC says “only” 300K Americans are killed by obesity each year. That sure seems like they use different scales when attributing deaths to contributing factors.
Oh sure. Obesity is bad. But there are no “second hand fat deaths”.
If nicotine or Big Macs are your preferred road to hell, fine. But smokers take along 40000 non-smokers with them.
The Toll of Tobacco in the United… | Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Tobacco kills more than 480,000 people annually – more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined. Tobacco costs the U.S. over $241 billion in health care expenditures and more than $365 billion in lost productivity each year.
Not all were due to Lung cancer.
Okay, this is good and useful, but a hijack, I am dropping it now.